"That said, libs and cons all need a nice comfortable echo chamber where we hear things we already know. I was glad when Fox news got rid of dopey Alan Colmes."

The best discussions aren't among those who routinely agree or among those whose worldviews are radically different. The best discussions are among those with common values who weight them differently.

Of course you also have to have a certain amount of goodwill present which excludes virtually all leftists. But since their only value is to drive anyone who doesn't agree with them from society they're excluded under rule one anyway.

Althouse, Kaus, and McArdle (popular centrists or moderate liberals) are interesting not because I always agree with them but because their positions intelligently account for facts people like Klein, Yglesias, or anyone else at the Atlantic simply refuse to admit exist. It's quite interesting to see how people arrive at different conclusions. But those wishing away the facts that don't fit their predetermined preferences are a total waste of time.

I'm sure Blaska would be commenting on this one:http://www.wisn.com/politics/29937613/detail.html"We don't want people to slow down and stop. We don't want that. We also don't want people to think this is hopeless because it's not. It's something we're very confident we can do," Zielinski saidTrouble in River..er.. Lake City??We'll miss you Dave - let us know of your next outpost!

"Echo chambers require tuning so that only the desired noise can be heard."

Traditional guy, that is well said.

Do you seek out, engage, or otherwise contemplate without caricaturing, liberal points of view? Do you sometimes find yourself ceding the validity of, or even yourself earnestly articulating, an argument that would be considered liberal by, say, this blog and most of its commenters?

Also, do you project the same condescension towards listeners to talk radio or viewers of FNC?

Madison Man: You are quite right about the free speech issue/Blaska. They simply dumped him, they didn't shut him up. A difference with no distinction. I don't think he is acting like a lefty band thinking their free speech is being squelched because stations find their content objectionable.

Garage: Does that happen much in Madison? Your ability to recall the specific instance seems to indicate that it is the exception rather than the rule. Up here in the northland, the occasional conservative gets on state owned radio, but usually as an anthropological study of something very odd.

Madison Man, free speech can be more than just the obligation to provide a forum. No one (sane) would suggest the Isthmus must provide a forum for Mr. Blaska. What's notable is that the Isthmus had one blogger who dissented from the company line, and now has none. That speaks to the ability of the left to engage with differing view points, and limits speech, even if it has a right to do so. Overwhelmingly left wasn't enough. Had to be 100%.

Marshal said: The best discussions are among those with common values who weight them differently.

There's a lot of truth in that.

I think the biggest problem with discussions between people with radically different valuations is not so much that the valuations are different, as that people so rarely seem to realize (let alone actually explore and make explicit) that the reason A and B totally disagree is not that one-of-them is Evil-or-stupid and the other is Good-or-smart.

I've seen a lot of very heated disagreement where one or both parties didn't realize (indeed, would not consider even when it was mentioned) that the differences were in significantly different priors.

2. "By publicly owned airwaves, I assumed you meant NPR and the like. Is there any conservative presence on NPR in WI?"

Yeah, it's funny how, even in years when Republican Party candidates get more than 50% of the vote, the "public" airwaves still seem to be overwhelmingly owned by those churning out left-leaning crap. When exactly does the other 50% get even a fraction of their airtime on the "public" airwaves? (Oh, yeah, apparently once a year three guys are allowed to get together for a talk.)

If Isthmus thinks they can make more money without him, then it's a good business move.

Whoa there, Mad Man! That's a gosh darn Republican thing to say! Making more money is okay? Nosiree, corporations like the one that owns the Isthmus should not profit from the work of Dave Blaska and others. Spread that money around! Profit is evil!

This reminds of the McKenna/Blaska/Meade Cry Fest about all the horrible liberal media biases in Madison....3 conservatives talking freely on publicly owned airwaves, in Madison.'

Notthisshitagain.jpg.

One the typical arguments from the Left: The fact that we let Conservatives speak means that WE are not biased.

I can't believe you trot this nonsense out as proof of anything except your own inability to understand it proves nothing of the sort.

As the Left likes to claim about 'racism' there is SYSTEMIC Left wing bias in the MSM and public radio. Letting others with contradictory viewpoints speak occasionally doesn't negate the very obvious libral slant of the news and also of what they *don't* report.

Add garage to the list of Kleins and yglesias who refuse to admit to facts that don't fit their world views.

That should be "Commercial radio is dominated by right wing talkers." That is, on stations that must pay the bills by selling advertising. They have listeners, they sell advertising, they make money.

Now, on National People's Radio, they have public funds to spew a liberal agenda. Further, advertisers to NPR are making charitable donations. Were they paying for advertising, then the stations receiving those fees would need to pay taxes on them. Those stations would go out of business because of too small audiences.

Liberal-socialist-progressive-fascists want to make moves to restrict "right wing" stations. Can't make a decent argument, so need to cheat. (See Chuck66, at 2:15pm.)

The Supreme Court is full of Catholics and Jews. Both have a tradition of intellectual honesty: of discussing a point until they reach consensus of what is right. Protestants have the annoying habit of arguing, and then splitting the church. Godless people have even less reason to resolve an issue. So, what Chuck66 said.